Maran Jamatia vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.

By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 22.05.2019 delivered in Civil Misc.65 of 2019 [arising from T.A.11 of 2019] by the District Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur has been questioned.

It is apparent from the records that the petitioner herein instituted the suit in respect of the land described in Schedule-A of the plaint admeasuring .85 acres. Out of that Schedule-A land, according to the petitioner, he has lost his possession from Schedule-B land, which is part and parcel of Schedule-A land. The remaining land as described in Schedule-C is also part of Schedule-A land and is under threatened dispossession. Accordingly, the decree of perpetual injunction has been sought in the suit.

Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the said suit being T.S.04 of 2017 [Sri Maran Jamatia versus State of Tripura and Others] has been dismissed after trial by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura by the judgment dated 02.04.2019 with finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his right, title and interest over the suit land as described in Schedule-A of the plaint.

As consequence thereof, all the other issues as framed for decision were decided in the negative. Issues, inter alia, as framed by the trial court are :

(i)Whether the plaintiff has any right, title and interest over the suit land as described in Schedule "A" of the plaint ?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree as prayed for ?

Being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 02.04.2019, the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in the court of the District Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur being T.A.No.11 of 2019 which is still pending. Along with the said appeal, an application under Section 94 read with Section 151 of the CPC for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession over the Schedule-C land had also been filed. But by the impugned order dated 22.05.2019, the District Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur [the appellate court] has dismissed the said petition on scrutiny of the records and on observing that primafacie it cannot be believed that the petitioner had made out a case for temporary injunction as sought. As stated earlier, the said order dated 22.05.2019 has been challenged under the revisional petition.

However, it has not been denied by the respondents that the petitioner is under possession of Schedule-C land as described in the plaint.

Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that the said possession has not been confirmed by the trial court. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim injunction, of any form, against the respondents.

Be that as it may, this court is of the view that to avert multiplicity of litigations, the statusquo in respect of Schedule-C land be maintained till disposal of the appeal being T.A.No.11 of 2019, as pending in the court of the District Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur. The appellate court in view of this limited order of restraint shall make all endeavours to hear the appeal within a period of three months from the date when a copy of this order will be available to that court.

In terms of the above, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

There shall be no order as to costs.